Rowena Padilla-Rumbaua, petitioner vs Edward Rumbaua

Facts:
The petitioner, petition to declare for the nullification of marriage against the respondent for the ground of psychological incapacitated to exercise essential obligations as shown by the following circumstances, the respondent was reneged on the promise to live in one roof after finding a job, failed to extend financial support to the petitioner, blaming the petitioner for the death of the mother’s respondent, and presented himself single for all his transaction and pretended working in Davao although he was cohabiting with other woman in Novaliches City.

Issue:
Whether or not the psychological incapacity as basis for the declaration of nullification of marriage?

Ruling:
Article 36 of of its celebration the Family Code which provides that “a marriage contracted by any party who at the time of its celebration, was psychological incapacitated to comply with the essential marital Obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even is such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. Wherefore, in view of the considerations, we deny the petition and affirm the decision and resolution of the court of appeals.

Get quality help now

Doctor Jennifer

Verified writer

Proficient in: Human

5 (893)

“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

G.R. 180764 January 19, 2010
Titus B Villanueva,-petitioner vs Emma M Rosqueta-Respondent

Fact:
The petitioner, ignored the injunction shows bad faith and intent spite respondent who remained in the eyes of the Law the Deputy Commissioner. His exclusion of her from the centennial anniversary memorabilia was not an honest mistake by any reckoning. Indeed, he withheld her salary and prevented her from assuming the duties of the position.

Issue:
Whether or not the petitioner be liable in damages to respondent for ignoring the preliminary injunction order the RTC issued in the quo warranto case?

Ruling:
Yes. The petitioner is liable to respondent for she suffered from severe anxiety on account of the speculation over her enjoyment status, and that stated on art 19 and art 20 a.Article 19 of Civil Code, a person must, in exercise of his legal right or duty, act in good health b.Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnity the letter for the same.

G.R.143989 July 14, 2003
Lahom vs Sibulo
Fact:
Mrs Lahom applied for a petition to rescind the adoption before the RTC, Branch 22, of Naga Ciity for reasons there is no more basis for existence, this petition for revocation.

Issue:
Whether or not admitting the facts alleged of the petitioner?

Ruling:
No. As long a petition for adoption in form and substance in accordance with the law in governance at the time it was filed, the court requires jurisdiction and retains it until disposes the case.

G.R. 160273 jan 18, 2008
CCCI petitioner vs Elizagaque respondent

Fact:
The CCCI Board of Directors, action on respondents application for proprietary membership was differed and the respondents received a letter from CCIs corporate secretary informing the respondent the Board disapproved
his application for proprietary membership.

Issue:
a.Whether or not disapproving on respondents application for propriery membership with CCCI b.Wether or not their liability is joint or several?

Ruling:
No. In rejecting respondents application for propriery membership, we find that the petitioner violated the rules and governing human relations, the basic principles to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the ability of social order.